Month: January 2010

Welcome to Mr. Jefferson’s U, Madame President

Eduflack Uncategorized

Big news coming out of Charlottesville this afternoon.  Today, the University of Virginia, Eduflack’s alma mater, officially announced that Dr. Teresa A. Sullivan would become the eight president of Mr. Jefferson’s University, following two decades of terrific leadership by John T. Casteen III.  Dr. Sullivan assumes the post August 1.

Sullivan brings the pedigree we would expect for the top public university in the nation.  She joins U.Va. after serving as provost and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Michigan.  She previously spent nearly 30 years at the University of Texas system, rising to the post of executive vice chancellor for academic affairs.  And for the record, she holds a doctorate from the University of Chicago (too bad it wasn’t from Virginia), with her scholarship focused on labor force demography.
She is going to have HUGE shoes to fill.  President Casteen has been one of those leaders that so many institutions dream about.  A steady hand at the helm for 20 years, Casteen kept U.Va. as a top public Ivy throughout his tenure, weathering massive budget cuts from the state.  With less than 10 percent of his funding coming from the Commonwealth, Casteen has continually grown the University, building new buildings, recruiting top professors, and strengthening the overall institutional brand.  He even had U.Va. football ranked number one in the country (albeit briefly).  And Casteen is a triple Hoo to boot (B.A., M.A., and Ph.D.).
But perhaps even more impressive are the two capital campaigns Casteen has led for the University, raising billions of dollars to ensure our position as one of the top universities in the nation.  So as Sullivan sits down in the big chair, the alumni network likely expects to see fundraising continue, U.Va. atop the US News rankings, and some national championships, preferably in football and basketball.
President Sullivan carries even more baggage when she looks at the history before her.  She will be the eighth president for a university founded nearly two centuries ago (granted, there was no official U.Va. president for the institution’s first 80 years).  More importantly, she is the first woman to serve as president of the University, an institution that did not go coed until only four decades ago.  In fact, Sullivan officially takes over a month before the 40-year anniversary of the first class of undergraduate women at the University’s College of Arts & Sciences.
Across the nation and around the world, Virginia alumni should be proud.  Proud of the legacy Dr. Casteen has left.  Proud of the history the Board of Visitors has made by selecting Teresa Sullivan.  And proud of the opportunities now before us.  Today is a proud day for Mr. Jefferson’s University.
Wahoowa!

Whiteboarding “Uneven” Learning

Eduflack teachers, technology

Too often, we preach technology for technology’s sake in education.  Not wanting to be the last industry sector to adopt the latest toys or shiny playthings, we rush out to acquire that which we may not understand or appreciate.  As a result, we have that which is cool or cutting edge (at least for the next 10 minutes), but we often lack the training, support, and expertise to truly put it to use in the classrooms that need it the most.

Case in point — interactive whiteboards.  Over at Education Week, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo has this piece on the impact of interactive whiteboards in K-12 classrooms.  Asking the impact of such technology on teaching, Manzo has come back with a disturbing answer — “uneven.”  For some, such technology is a godsend, an ability to bring 21st century tools into a 21st century learning environment, helping better integrate student interests and inclinations into a learning style that can maximize outcomes.  For others, these pricey investments are used as nothing more than glorified chalkboards, reducing the latest bells and whistles to a 21st century reincarnation of Little House on the Prairie learning.

So why are such tools and technology “uneven” when it comes to improving teaching and learning in the classroom?  From the cheap seats, there are two major differentiators between those who are utilizing such technology effectively and those who might as well be banging rocks against those expensive whiteboards — integration and expertise.

From Manzo’s piece and from tales of good education technology across the nation, we know that teachers who effectively integrate technology into the wants and needs of both students and society are the ones who succeed.  To put a finer point on it, it isn’t what we teach, but rather how we teach it.  Putting Chaucer’s or Dickens’ greatest works on a Kindle does not teach handheld technologies. It uses handheld technology to deliver some of the greatest literature the world has ever read.  It provides content in a way that many of today’s students are better used to dealing with, opening their minds with great tech so we can feed them time-tested technology.

In far too many schools, we still “de-skill” students, unplugging them from the mediums they are most comfortable with to teach through methods contemporary to the buggy whip.  We unplug our students, believing that laptops, iPods, cellphones, and even whiteboards have no real place in teaching the three Rs.  As a result, students fail to see the relevance of their education as they judge the delivery and not the content.  In our quest to boost high school graduation numbers and build a more educated workforce, we should be doing everything and anything we can to better connect students to those learning and opportunity pathways.  That not only means technology, but it means well-integrated tech.

That leaves us with expertise.  We can’t simply install a new whiteboard in a veteran teacher’s classroom and expect her to use it like the salesperson originally demonstrated.  If we are to utilize ed tech effectively in the classrooms, we need to provide all teachers (and not just those designated tech teachers or affiliated with the business departments) with the skill and support to use available tools.  That not only means supporting ed tech “experts” in the schools, like we would reading or math experts, but it also means ensuring that all teachers have a basis of understanding and know how for how to put new tech to use in their old classrooms.  From interactive whiteboards on down, technologies can impact reading to foreign language, math to science, history to theater.  But we can’t make teachers walk the path alone.  We need to support them.  And we need to make clear that technology is the tool, and not the teacher itself.

In past years, schools across the nation have turned to federal programs such as the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program to provide the funds and guidance necessary to seed technology professional development in the classroom.  But at a time when ed tech has never been more important to the future success of our schools and our students, programs like EETT have all but been discarded like an eight-year-old operating system.  When the program was originally envisioned less than a decade ago, Congress intended for EETT to provide approximately $1 billion a year in PD support.  A small drop in the bucket when it comes to federal education spending, but the earth, moon, and stars for the ed tech community.  EETT never reached that intended target, and today the program only receives $100 million in federal support.  That’s one-tenth the funding to support thousands of schools at a time when technology, innovation, and turnaround has never been more paramount.  And one-tenth the intended funding at a time when supporting, encouraging, and developing qualified and effective teachers has never been a greater priority. 

Are whiteboards the solution to our struggling schools?  Of course not.  They are just the latest example of what technology has to offer.  We asked this question of one-to-one computing a decade ago.  We’re starting to ask it of options like iPhones and Twitter today.  The point is not the technology itself, but how well positioned our schools and educators are to receive the latest and greatest industry can produce.  Those teachers who understand (and are supported in) how to use technology to make instruction more relevant and interesting to the student will always thrive.  Those schools that are regularly providing educators the professional development and ongoing support to adapt and thrive in an ever-changing learning environment will always succeed.  

When we invest in our classrooms, our ROI should never be defined as “uneven.”  At a time when technology in education is the quickest path to meaningful improvement, we must make sure we are investing in the people and conditions to ensure success.  Interactive whiteboards alone can’t do it.  Teachers who understand the full power and reach of those whiteboards (along with the next big three things to come down the pike) can.

Running a New Race in New Jersey

Eduflack charter schools, RTT

I am not ashamed to admit that Eduflack is a Jersey guy, and I don’t just mean that I like Springsteen.  I spent many of my formative public school years in New Jersey public schools.  I was an altar boy at Holy Name Catholic Church in East Orange.  I still dream of those Saturday night visits to Star Tavern pizza in Orange.  I was a paperboy for the Newark Star-Ledger, my first paying job. I look fondly on the days when I was fortunate enough to work for U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley.  And today, my family makes the trek up to central Jersey (Hamilton, to be exact) for most major holidays and family functions.  So while the body may reside in DC, Eduflack’s heart will always be in the Garden State.

As such, I’ve been paying particular attention to recent Race to the Top activities in the state.  Back in the fall, the New Jersey Department of Education issued an RFP to find consulting firms who could help it prepare the state’s Race application (as it was not a beneficiary of Gates’ summer grant gifts).  Then in November, mere weeks after proposals were due and after Chris Christie defeated incumbent governor Jon Corzine, the state returned all submissions unopened, suspending their engagement.  Most saw this as a sign that the SEA was holding off, dumping RttT in the lap of an unprepared Christie administration.

But a funny thing has happened since then.  New Jersey Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and her team have been scrambling to complete their application, with every intention of submitting for Phase One consideration.  And just yesterday, two weeks before the Phase One deadline, Davy announced her comprehensive plans (and reforms) for making NJ a contender in the Race.  The full story can be found in yesterday’s Star-Ledger here.

New Jersey has a compelling story to tell when it comes to education reforms.  From the reforms caused by the Abbott decision to some of the bold actions taken by Newark Mayor Corey Booker, there is much to talk about.  Yet Jersey lags when it comes to charter schools.  And the strength of the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s teachers union, is legendary.  All this makes a Race application difficult to write, and even more difficult to enforce should the state win.

Davy focused her remarks yesterday on the adoption of state-of-the-art data systems and school turnaround plans.  Calling the plan “aggressive but achievable,” she noted that NJEA was at the table helping to develop the plan (even though NJEA leadership is now voicing objections, particularly to the Race-mandated teacher merit pay provisions).  Obviously, this plan is the capstone to Davy’s tenure, representing what she and Gov. Corzine have been working on for years in the area of public education.  And for the record, it is a good plan, particularly when you consider the history and politics of public education in the state.

Why all of this expository?  Davy’s team will be submitting Jersey’s Race application on the same day that Christie is sworn in as the state’s next governor.  It is safe to say that his transition team is not significantly involved in the application development, particularly since Davy did not focus on Christie’s education reform centerpiece — charter schools.  So we have a very real possibility of New Jersey charting a course that the incoming powers that be will either be unable or unwilling to actually steer toward.  It was a dilemma that Eduflack noted back in November, and now it has become all too real.

So what should Christie do?  RttT guidelines say that the application must be endorsed by, among other people, the state’s governor.  As of the Phase One deadline, then Gov. Christie’s signature will not be on the application.  It may be semantics to some, but at the time of consideration, the New Jersey Race application will not have the endorsement of the state’s sitting governor.  So what’s a Jersey governor to do?

If Eduflack were standing in Christie’s shoes on January 19, there is only one inevitable action to take.  I would withdraw the state’s Race application.  Pull it back from the U.S. Department of Education before it is reviewed and scrutinized.  Note that it does not hold the endorsement of the state’s governor … yet.  Buy myself some time so my advisors, both in state and out, can help assemble a plan that would utilize that nearly $400 million in possible education support to forward my own plans for education improvement.

(The major wrinkle to all of this, of course, is NJEA.  They are now on record as not being thrilled with Davy’s plan.  They also led a passionate, expensive, and some say vitriolic non-stop attack against Christie throughout the campaign, trying to paint his as Public Enemy Number One for the state.  Rewriting the Race app means likely losing NJEA support entirely (it’s not like they would have a significant seat at the table the second time around).  And the state needs the endorsement of the teachers union to put forward an acceptable application.  It’s a real damned do/don’t for Christie.  Accept the application as is, and live with the plan and NJEA’s role as a driver in it, or pull it back and offer a plan you can truly get behind.)

But if he does withdraw the expected Phase One application, Christie will then have four months to figure out his next move.  His Department of Education can begin work sketching out a new vision, building on Davy’s plans for data systems and moderate teacher merit pay while using charters as a major driver for school improvement.  He can look to replicate recent reforms in Newark in cities like Trenton.  He can show more love to Jersey’s STEM education commitment.  He can even look to strengthen the standing of programs like Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools across the Garden State.  He has the time and power to craft a Race application that represents his vision and demonstrates the Christie path to improved student learning and test scores.

Or he can be even bolder, and simply decide that New Jersey will not compete in Race to the Top.  He can determine that the obligations under standards, assessments, and data systems are too great to manage in this economy with a meager $400 million.  He could decree that his education improvement agenda is focused exclusively on the expansion and support of charter schools, and since charters are but a minor part of Race’s intentions, he’s going to go all-in on charters in his own way, and he’ll find the state and private-sector support to make it happen without the federal oversight.

Yes, New Jersey has bigger issues to address than Race to the Top.  Christie has to focus immediately on a struggling economy, high taxes, high unemployment, a state pension system out of control, and a populace that has lost confidence in most of its social institutions.  Making a bold move on Race, in his first day in office, can signal that Christie is not business as usual.  He listened to the state, and knows they are hungry for change.  He realizes that today’s struggling parents want a better future for their kids.  And that future begins with stronger schools.  This may be the one real opportunity he has to truly make his mark on public education, acting now and the refocusing on the state’s economic needs.

From one Jersey boy to another, think about it Mr. Christie.  We often complain about what we inherit from the predecessors in our jobs.  Rarely are we given the opportunity to change things right out of the gate.  RttT is a major commitment for New Jersey.  Do you take this opportunity to fo
llow, or to lead through your own bold strategy?

How Valuable Are the Race Fire Drills?

Eduflack accountability, Arne Duncan, charter schools, national standards, RTT, teachers

In recent months, we have seen state departments of education and state legislatures scurry to make themselves eligible and better positioned to win a federal Race to the Top grant.  From knocking down the firewalls between student performance data and teachers to smoothing the path for charter school expansion to adopting common core standards to just demonstrating a hospitable environment for education reform and change, states have been doing anything and everything to gain a better position for the Race. 

Earlier this week, Michigan announced sweeping reforms to put them in line with the federal requirements.  California is currently debating similar positions (with what seems like growing concerns).  And we seem genuine changes in reform culture in states like Indiana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and many others along the way.  (Every state, that is, except for the Republic of Texas, which as of yesterday still hasn’t committed to even pursuing RttT, despite the $250K it received from the Gates Foundation to prepare its application.)

But one has to ask, is it another tale of too little, too late?  In November, the U.S. Department of Education released a comprehensive scorecard of how RttT applications would be scored, breaking down allotments so specifically that it included everything but throwing out the low score from the Ukrainian judges.  Every state is working off the same 500-point scale, building a workplan that aligns as closely with Arne Duncan’s four pillars as humanly (or bureaucratically) possible.  We’re working toward extra points for STEM and for charter schools and for demonstrating a general culture of reform.  And we’re growing more and more mindful of how those points break down, recognizing, for instance, that STEM and charters are worth virtually the same score as turning around low-performing schools.

Often overlooked in the discussion, though, is the fact that 52 percent of a state’s RttT application is supposed to be based on past accomplishment and achievement.  So for all of those states who just recently removed the caps and changed the charter laws, will they only earn half-credit for their plans for the future, or do we recognize them for the intent of their efforts?  What about those states, like California, New York, and Wisconsin, that are just now taking down those data firewalls?  Are they out of luck when it comes to evaluating their past performance?  And will ED reviewers really dock Texas 80 points (nearly 15 percent of the total score) for not signing onto common standards, when Texas’ state standards may already be closely aligned with where the NGA/CCSSO effort is ultimately headed?  Is the 52/48 split a hard-and-fast rule, or is it meant as a guiding suggestion to states to shape how they write they apps, with ED officials hoping to see equal focus on what states have done in these areas and what they are planning to do in the future?

If we believe the former, we are looking at a very, very select group of states that are qualified to win RttT in the end.  How many states come to the table with real, tangible, and longitudinal successes on all four of the pillars of Race?  How many can really talk about their strong work in effective data systems?  How many have really invested in meaningful teacher quality efforts, including state-led teacher incentive pay programs?  How many are doing what their legislatures and SEAs have now committed them to do in the future (and more importantly, how many can prove it)?

If the projections are true, 80 percent of states will be submitting their Phase One applications later this month.  If we are lucky, we’ll have more than four states actually win in Phase One.  (that, my friends, is where Eduflack is setting the Phase One over/under)  What will happen to those states that either are not called for oral defenses in March or fail to wow their dissertation panels?  Do those states go back to the drawing board, and try to turn around a winning app in 30-60 days, or do they lick their wounds, move on, and say they never really wanted the grants in the first place?

Only time will tell.  Regardless, Race has been effective for the enormous influence it has had on changing state laws and policies without doling out a single dollar to support the changes.  We have already changed the culture of public education in the last 12 years, at least in terms of regulation and legislation.  If a state fails to win the Race, they are unlikely to go back and reinstitute the firewalls, re-restrict charters, or pull out of the common core standards movement.  Maybe that was the intent all along …

STEM-ing the Rising Education Tide

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM

It is hard to ignore the momentum that STEM (science-technology-engineering-mathematics) education is gaining these days.  For years now, states and school districts have invested heavily in STEM education, first as a proactive step to allow our students to better compete in a flat, global economy and most recently as a reactive step to a changing economy and greatly changing job prospects.  No matter the reason, STEM is hot.  It is the only instructional area singled out for bonus points in Race to the Top applications.  Last fall, the White House announced a new federal initiative directing $250 million in new dollars to STEM efforts.  And that doesn’t even count the buckets of money that have been committed to the cause from the National Science Foundation, NASA, philanthropies like the Gates Foundation, and countless corporate entities.

Today, President Obama is slated to announce an additional $250 million to “improve science and math instruction,” essentially doubling the commitment his team made to the topic just a few short months ago in November.  The full story can be found here.

As someone who has worked in STEM education for many years, there is something satisfying about seeing the time, attention, and resources being devoted to this key issue.  There is little question that STEM literacy is a non-negotiable when it comes to an effective education.  The knowledge and skills learned through STEM instruction is not only important for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world, but it is essential for anyone who hopes to hold any sort of gainful employment in the coming years.  Coupling the necessary science and math with a STEM focus on problem solving, collaboration, critical thinking, is key.  Not only does it keep students engaged (and thus on the path to graduation), but it also demonstrates the relevance of what they are learning (at least when it is done correctly and effectively).

The public-private partnership proposed by the Obama Administration seems focused primarily on teachers, both in the training of new teachers and the in-service support of existing STEM teachers.  The details of both are still to be determined (we seem to have number targets, but not the how quite yet).  Regardless, there are a number of issues that dear ol’ Eduflack hopes are being considered as part of our increased commitment to STEM education:
* Mid-career changers — The changes in the economy have put a great number of STEM-skilled professionals out looking for new positions.  Just by looking at the pharmaceutical and telecommunications sectors alone, we have a great number of potential STEM educators ready, willing, and skilled.  We need to look at specific ways to equip these individuals with the pedagogy and support they need to be effective teachers.  Perhaps we can look to Pennsylvania’s plans for mid-career transition and IBM’s 2005 experiment to transition many of its employees into teaching as models to get us going.
* STEM certification — In the broad sense, STEM is an interdisciplinary field that demonstrates how the four components (and beyond) work together to meet the changing needs of a changing world.  We can’t expect a math teacher to teach engineering or science.  (And we mostly expect that “technology” is being taught through business departments that used to teach typing).  So what about a hybrid certification for secondary STEM teachers?  It may be broader strokes than some would want, but it can be far more effective than hopin’ and prayin’ that we are able to connect the S, T, E, and M in the current model. 
* Teacher Externships — With the private sector stepping up to the plate as a partner in this new endeavor, we need to do a better job of helping teachers communicate the relevance and importance of STEM education.  Like it or not, students look to teachers who have walked the walk.  So what about teacher externships in STEM fields, where teachers take a week in the summer to shadow in local industry (paid time, of course)?  They can then take these “real world” experiences back to the classroom, speaking truth to students about what is needed in the workforce and talking firsthand about the truly interesting opportunities that are out there.

And while we are at it, what about redoubling our investment in STEM internships for students?  As a nation, we are focused on increasing our high school graduation rates while moving more students into postsecondary learning experiences.  What better way to get high school students into internships, where they can explore job possibilities in the community, learn from those who do, and better understand the knowledge, skills, and degrees/certifications necessary to actually obtain the job.  When we talk about making the high school experience more relevant, what better way can we do that by linking lessons in the classroom today with lessons in the workplace today?

At the end of the day, STEM investment needs to focus on both the teachers and the students, with clear goals and expectations for both.  We not only need more STEM teachers, but we need STEM teachers that clearly demonstrate their effectiveness.  We not only need more STEM-literate students, but we need to use that literacy to fill the pipeline of secondary and postsecondary education, whether a child aspires to be an athlete, poet, chemist, or engineer.  And we need a community that places strong value on those STEM skills, recognizing that they are non-negotiables for virtually every citizen looking to contribute to the 21st century. 

Ultimately, $500 million and corporate partnership can go a long way in rising the STEM education tide.  We just need to make sure we are all taking full advantage of the crest.

Where’s the 2009 Love?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, Chancellor Klein, Media

Yes, I recognize that we have started a new year.  But Eduflack is also mindful of the words of Winston Churchill that “those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”  So I can’t start the new year without looking over those lovely Year in Review editions put out by Time and Newsweek last week.

Those of us who have been hip deep in the education improvement movement often operate with blinders on, believing that the topics and issues that we are focused on are what the entire world are most concerned with.  About a month ago, Brookings came out with a study calculating that only 1.4 percent of the national news coverage in 2009 was education-related.  (Personally, as painful as the statistic was, I’d hate to see that number if we excluded coverage of Teach for America and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).  Despite all of our focus on teacher quality, test scores, Race to the Top, i3, and everything in between, we are only hearing about education 1 percent of the time.  It is no wonder that education is slipping on the list of important issues for likely voters.
And how do Time and Newsweek contribute to this discussion?  In their yearly wrap-ups, there is no mention of education.  No mention of the education implications of the stimulus bill.  No discussion of arguably the most popular member of the Obama cabinet, EdSec Arne Duncan.  No hat tips to TFA or charter schools.  No focus on supes like NY’s Joel Klein or DC’s Michelle Rhee.  No highlight of the growing attention to education coming from big city mayors from New York to Sacramento.  No headline for the $4 billion race.  Not even an acknowledgment to education in the tributes to U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy.
In fact, the closest thing to education making the headlines for the year was inclusion of Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos and his efforts to revolutionize how we read.  But few are expecting to see the Kindle take over for textbooks in a K-12 classroom any time in our lifetime.
So we start a new year again asking where to find the love.  Are we fighting a losing battle, expecting to see education stories capturing the hearts and minds of the national media (beyond the cadre of dedicated national education media who are tilting at windmills)?  Or are we looking in the wrong places?
We shouldn’t be looking to Katie Couric or the New York Times for the latest and greatest.  We should be looking at local newspapers and talk radio and websites and blogs.  We should recognize that, for the most part, education remains a local issue, and as such, is one best discussed in cities and towns (and maybe states).  
If we’re looking for the next great solution, the magic bullets that are going to solve all that ails our public schools, those stories aren’t likely to appear on the national nightly news or in the glossy newsweeklies.  Instead, they’ll appear where the majority of parents and local policymakers are focusing their attention.  The legendary Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill is best known for saying all politics is local.  The same is true for education reform.  Most improvements are local.  And they are first found on local talk radio and the pages of those newspapers with circulations in the five figures.